4 ms·

I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense. However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or a

I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense. However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?

NetStrikeForce 9y ago
I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.
mattnewton 9y ago
The south was allowed to assemble, talk and vote on it, but the north didn't recognize the secession as legitimate. Those are separate issues.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Catalonia has been allowed to discuss. It’s just the referendum, as I understand it, that is being banned. I’m trying to think what would happen if California passed an independence referendum whose results were then nullified by the Supreme Court.
  - nsnick 9y ago
    So they can talk about independence but not vote on it?
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Independence would be a modification of the Spanish Constitution, which can be voted on.
Trundle 9y ago
Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.